Jon Hanna wrote:
> There are plenty of books, magazines, webpages etc. with poems by
> Benjamin Zephaniah but all of these fail to have the impact of an
> audio track given the oral tradition on which his work relies. If I
> provide an audio track of Zephaniah then I should give a text-only
> version as well - but I can't hope to give the same content that you
> get when you hear him recite.
I think we're still missing the point here.
If a deaf person goes to a restaurant to eat, she should be seated the
same way any other customer would be seated. Her deafness should not
enter into the equation.
Yes, a person with good hearing might be given a bad table while a deaf
person is given a good one. So what? Come again on another night. It is
not discrimination against the hearing customer to get the same table he
would have gotten if the deaf customer hadn't been deaf!
Now, a deaf person dining alone might ask for a table away from the band
because he doesn't care where he sits and wants to free up a table for
someone who does. But the key point is that this is *his* choice, not
that of the maitre'd.
Really, it is all about being treated as an equal. When I come to a web
site, I should not get special treatment because I can hear, or because
I can see, or because I can read. If a background image, or other
images, or background music, or anything else conveys information to me,
that same information should be available to those who cannot see or
hear it -- to the extent possible given the limitations of physiology
and technology.
Will the deaf user get the same experience? Of course not. But guess
what! My brother won't get the same experience as I, nor will you. It's
not about what people take away from the site. It's about what is
*available* for them to take from it.
Charles F. Munat
Seattle, Washington